‘Harder and riskier': Carbon removal needed if Paris goals don't rise

Greenhouse gas emission cuts must be at least 20 per cent deeper than pledged under the Paris climate accord or the world will have to begin the costly direct removal of atmospheric carbon to avoid dangerous climate change, a new study argues.

Emissions impossible? Delays in cutting emissions make it
 more likely that carbon will have to be directly captured
if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

The Germany-based researchers examined the action needed if nations failed to deliver greater carbon curbs by 2030 but still kept global warming to under 2 degrees, compared with pre-industrial levels.

"Each tonne of CO2 we don't emit, we don't have to remove from the atmosphere afterwards in an expensive and strenuous way," said Jessica Strefler from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the lead author of the paper published on Thursday in Environmental Research Letters.

Read Peter Hannam’s story from The Age - “‘Harder and riskier': Carbon removal needed if Paris goals don't rise.”

Resource restrictions and climate disuptions escape review's understandings

A

ny understanding of what troubles the world appears to escape Australia’s neo-liberal Federal Government.

Ian Harper - an economist who
 needs help from both climatologists
 and those who understand
 resource restrictions.

Rather than be the solution to all our social problems, our prevailing market system is actually the cause.

The Harper Competition Review, driven by the Abbott Government, orchestrated by economists and obviously oblivious to what is really happening in the world, or has chosen to ignore them, and yet makes recommendations that takes us deeper into the difficulties that actually threaten humanity.

A story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Harper review: Plan to lift market restrictions to put consumer interests first” – tells of a plan to put consumers’ interests first, but actually ignores them completely.

The story says, “The plan is to put consumers' interests ahead of commercial interests, firing new market opportunities.”

Contraction rather than expansion is what needed and essential, if the world is, and by implication Australia, is to avoid a conflation of circumstances, ranging from resource depletion and catastrophic climate disruption.

Consumers actually need an outbreak of sanity combined with an equally generous helping of good sense to help them understand that in a world facing energy, resource and climate constraints, they need to be building a world in which they live with less rather than more.

The implication there of course, is that rather than extending retail trading hours, we should be structuring our communities so lifestyles can be similar, although different, and trading hours significantly shorter.

The ills of the world can be attributed to many things, but it is difficult to argue that the market system, so lionized by so many, is not the root cause.

Our developed nations are simply too wealthy and our consumption of energy and resource-rich goods and services is extreme already pushing the world into serious ecological debt.

Rather than adopting the Harper Review plan of extending trading hours and effectively allowing a laissez-faire approach, we should be discussing and moving toward reducing and limiting times for traditional business.

Instead of a 24/7 arrangement for retail businesses, our communities should be looking to move in exactly the opposite direction, that is a four-hour trading day, no overtime and no double shifts, but not including public services and primary producers.

Such a change would shift the emphasis away from simply making money and gathering “stuff” and allow people time in their communities to bond with those around them and build resilience in their neighbourhoods.

With just four hours on the job, people would live closer to their work and so would be able to walk or cycle, eliminating the need for road transport, making a significant difference to personal costs and easing the worsening of human damage to earth’s ecological systems, along with being far more resource effeicient.